Author
Topic: What's Going On? (Read 2940 times)

Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.

But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.

Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America.

One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.

Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.

Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through "Terri's law." But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge's order that she remain there.

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.

The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.

But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.

And it won't stop there. There is a nationwide trend toward "conscience" or "refusal" legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any patient. Again, think of how such laws expose doctors to pressure and intimidation.

But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer.

We can't count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay, who believes that he's on a mission to bring a "biblical worldview" to American politics, and that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission.

What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely defending their professional integrity? I think the American Medical Association disapproves of politicians who second-guess medical diagnoses based on video images - but the association's statement on the Schiavo case is so timid that it's hard to be sure.

The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.

America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

Logged

"Lurch my good man,â€¦what did you mean when you said just now that 'You've got better things to do than run my petty little errands'â€¦â€¦.?"

(CNN) -- Authorities said a North Carolina man was arrested Friday by FBI agents on charges of soliciting the murder of a judge and the husband of Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman at the center of a legal and moral tug of war.

Authorities said Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, North Carolina, offered $250,000 for the killing of Michael Schiavo and another $50,000 for the death of Circuit Court Judge George Greer, who ordered Schiavo's feeding tube removed a week ago.

Meywes was arrested without incident at his home about 5 p.m. on charges of solicitation of murder and sending threatening communications, authorities said.

He is expected to make an initial appearance Monday in U.S. District Court in Asheville. He will remain in the custody of U.S. marshals until then, authorities said.

A conviction on the charges could bring up to 15 years in prison and up to $500,000 in fines.

The charges were announced by the two lead prosecutors on the case: Paul Perez, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Florida; and Gretchen Shappert, U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina.

An affidavit filed in support of the charges alleges that Meywes wrote an e-mail Tuesday that said a "bounty with a price tag of $250,000 has been taken out on the head of Michael Schiavo." It also alleges he said an "additional $50,000 has been offered for the elimination of the judge who ruled against Terry in Florida," an apparent reference to Terri Schiavo.

The affidavit also says the same e-mail refers to the recent killings of a judge in Atlanta and family members of a federal judge in Chicago.

Greer, a Pinellas County circuit judge, has been under the protection of two U.S. marshals at all times in recent weeks due to increased threats against his life by those unhappy with his handling of the Schiavo case.

"Mr. Meywes' use of the Internet to convey threats and solicit violent acts is a clear violation of federal law," Perez said in a written statement.

"Regardless of any one person's stance on the complex and heartfelt issues involved in Ms. Schiavo's case, the matter must be resolved within the bounds of our democratic system and rule of law," the statement read. "The use of threats and other scare tactics cannot and will not be tolerated."

Shappert said, "Threats made in interstate commerce will not be ignored by federal law enforcement."

Authorities said the case was a joint investigation by the FBI's Tampa and Charlotte offices, and the Sheriff's Department of Pinellas County, Florida

I guess he for the right to life unless you disagree with him. Hope he has a good long stay in jail. This is domestic terrorism

Logged

"Lurch my good man,â€¦what did you mean when you said just now that 'You've got better things to do than run my petty little errands'â€¦â€¦.?"

We live in a world where extreme RIGHT TO LIFE protestors BLOWUP abortion clinics killing everyone inside.

A time when animal rights activists spray paint people's fur coats ruining them, which just causes the person to run out an buy a new one - sending another animal to its death.

Extremists are everywhere - I just hope that I am right in thinking that MOST PEOPLE at least in the USA are somewhere in the middle and "AGREE TO DISAGREE" on issues that they feel strongly on.

Extremists here may not tie bombs to their bodies or drive cars filled with expolsives with the hope to kill as many people as they can - but when looked at it from a neutral prospective, it probably doesn't look at all that much different to people in other countries.

My own feelings on Freedom of Speech are only limited by my feeling that no one needs to purposely harm the character of another (at least in these forums) otherwise, we are all allowed to express even the craziest of thoughts and opinions (as long as) what they say is a realistic belief and not just something thrown in to stir the pot.

Sometimes, there are no right answers - but killing people because you disagee with the is never right. Yes, we are a litigious society, suing is sold to us on nearly every TV Show and it is forced down our throats more frequently than pain medication commercials. But none of this gives us the right to harm others.

I remember this past Summer a man in Philadelphia, PA was nearly car-jacked, his wallet was taken by one of the 4 thugs and a thug said AFTER WE KILL YOU, WE ARE GOING TO RAPE YOUR DAUGHTERS - in his hand was the address of this victim and there was no doubt in his mind that he was 1) a dead man and 2) his daughters would be raped.

He stepped on the gas, turned his car around, ran over one of the thugs, cutting him in 2 pieces and chased down the others along with witnesses and eventually all were caught. NO CHARGES we brought against this man, the one he ran over deserved what happened to him. You threaten a life, you put your life at risk - If this case had made it to court and this driver had killed ALL FOUR THUGS, I still would have found him INNOCENT.

Taking the law into your own hands is rarely the answer, but it was a matter of his life or theirs and if you are confronted, you have the right in law to "EQUALLY" (not SURPASS) the act committed upon you - meaning if someone punches you, you do not have the right to shoot them. But this man, an older man had only ne way to survive and save his daughters, what he committed was self defense and again no charges were filed. To me - this man is a hero - he put one piece of crap in the ground and 3 more in jail for a very long time.

There are extremists is my point - but even in those, some (albeit few) have a moral ground to stand on. Blatant murder should not land someone in prison where we have to feed them for 40, 50, 60 years - it should be $100 worth of chemical, shot in their arms and put them out of our misery, forever.

Please enjoy the forum, and if it has helped you in any way, we hope that a small donation can be made to support our FULLY member supported forum. You will never see advertisements here, and that is because of the generous members who have made our forum possible. We are in our second decade as a beekeeping forum and all thanks to member support. At the top right of every page is a donations link. Please help if you can.

The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.

Only 31% I'm shocked. Considering the vastness of the so-called "religous right".

But have no fear, the liberals still have a hold of academia and will continue to preach their one-sided story. How dare us to pressure them to teach what a majority of us believe in.

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."

Religious services take a back seat for many faculty members, with 51 percent saying they rarely or never attend church or synagogue and 31 percent calling themselves regular churchgoers. On the gender front, 72 percent of the full-time faculty are male and 28 percent female.

The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.

The study appears in the March issue of the Forum, an online political science journal. It was funded by the Randolph Foundation, a right-leaning group that has given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women's Forum and Americans for Tax Reform.

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of "possible discrimination" against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, "the most likely conclusion" is that "being conservative counts against you," he said. "It doesn't surprise me, because I've observed it happening." The study, however, describes this finding as "preliminary."

When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, "The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion." Knight said he isn't aware of "any good evidence" that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.

"It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."

Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte find a leftward shift on campus over the past two decades. In the last major survey of college faculty, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984, 39 percent identified themselves as liberal.

In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.

The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection "even if it raises prices or costs jobs" (88 percent). What's more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.

Recent campus controversies have reinforced the left-wing faculty image. The University of Colorado is reviewing its tenure system after one professor, Ward Churchill, created an uproar by likening World Trade Center victims to Nazis. Harvard's faculty of arts and sciences voted no confidence in the university's president, Lawrence Summers, after he privately wondered whether women had the same natural ability as men in science and math.

The study did not attempt to examine whether the political views of faculty members affect the content of their courses.

The researchers say that liberals, men and non-regular churchgoers are more likely to be teaching at top schools, while conservatives, women and more religious faculty are more likely to be relegated to lower-tier colleges and universities.

Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs.

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.

"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective."

Logged

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison

Inersting post but what does it have to do with the original thread? The red states are not all"Religous Right" They merely voted republican. I think a lot of that was people not liking kerry. As for faculty in higher educatiion, thats no surprise. If you wanted to do the research you would also find that the more education someone has the more likely they are to be liberal.

I am not a liberal, I just believe in liberty. I have zero desire to live in a theocracy which is what Delay and the religous right want to make this country into. Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Mr. DeLay, who believes that he's on a mission to bring a "biblical worldview" to American politics, and that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission.

Lord protect me from your followers

Logged

"Lurch my good man,â€¦what did you mean when you said just now that 'You've got better things to do than run my petty little errands'â€¦â€¦.?"

I have zero desire to live in a theocracy which is what Delay and the religous right want to make this country into. Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Mr. DeLay, who believes that he's on a mission to bring a "biblical worldview" to American politics, and that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission.

You're missing the point of the majority of the concern in the Schiavo case. It is not about the right to die, it is about Terri Schiavo getting due justice. The Florida law requiring "clear and convincing" evidence of a patient's intent. When only one judge looks at the facts over six years ago and refuses to hear any new evidence found in the last six years as well as based his decision on pure hearsay, how can it be clear and convincing?

Our three branches of government are suppose to coexist. When the legislative branch and the executive branch pass a bill requesting a de novo review (court to review all evidence used in the trial and determine if they come to the same results) and the judge refuses and only confirms the law as constitutional, that is pure arrogance on the judicary's part. It is not like the bill tried to overturn the ruling, or even request a new trial (include evidence not used in the original trial). It was an attempt to get a second look at the facts an assure due justice. Is there something wrong with having more than one person rule on a case that invovles life and death, when there is so much compelling evidence questioning the husbands motivation?

Logged

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison

Actually if you look at the poll, most people were against the legislative and executive branchs being involved, they also supported her right to die.I am very tired of hearing about "compelling evidence questioning the husbands motivation?"

What compelling evidence?Obviously it wasn't that compelling or at least FORTY judges seemed to feel that way. Allegations are not evidence, presumption of innocence, which is in the constittution.

Poor shy girl being used by people who care nothing about her.Her husband cradled her as she died

I can't wait for the autopsy.

I can't understand why the christian right is so dead set against science.Anything that they dissagree with just doesn't exist. I'll bet that if the autopsy comes back that she was indeed brain dead, you guys will be saying BS thats not true.

I really don't understand that if you believe that god is all powerful, why he would need people to enforce his will. It's all about you chosing how you live your life and answering for it.God needs no self appointed enforcers. The religous right is trying very hard to shove their template on everyone elses lives. Maybe we don't want that, anyone ever consider that?

If they christians of the middle ages had their way we would still be teaching that the sun revovles around the earth. Ask Galliao

Here would be my questionAt what point will you let me die?

Logged

"Lurch my good man,â€¦what did you mean when you said just now that 'You've got better things to do than run my petty little errands'â€¦â€¦.?"

Actually if you look at the poll, most people were against the legislative and executive branchs being involved, they also supported her right to die.

The left wants to keep talking polls, they are useless and play on an uneducated American. Like I have previously stated 2/3 of Americans polled believe "seperation of church and state" is in the constitution. That doesn't make it part of the constitution... How a poll is asked and in what context drastically effects the results. With a liberal biased media, would you expect the polls to not be biased in direction.

If the question was should the legislative and executive branch try to prevent someones right to die (which is what I believe the media is trying to make the people taking the poll believe) then I too would vote against against it.

But if you look at the bill that they passed, it was not to overturn the ruling or the law, just to have a second look at all the facts.

When you ask a wide open question like "Should the president and congress get involved with the Schiavo case" you are playing on the facts that the majority of Americans don't even know why they are getting involved and assume it is trying to change a law.

A better question (that of course the media would never do) would be "Should 1 judge be the sole person deciding on someones fate, and no other review should be allowed"

Quote from: BigRog

What compelling evidence?Obviously it wasn't that compelling or at least FORTY judges seemed to feel that way. Allegations are not evidence, presumption of innocence, which is in the constittution.

I'm very tired of forty judges. You just don't get it. One and only one judge ever looked at the facts. The other 39 never looked at any of the facts and just keep reaffirming that the right to die is constitution. That is not what is being questioned. It is the arrogance of the judicial branch to refuse review.

Rog, Answer one question for me. You are perfectly comfortable that this one judge (whom I assume you believe is human and makes mistakes just like you and me) is absolutely correct in his judgement and even though a life is involved, his word is final and there is no need for a second party review?

Quote from: BigRog

I really don't understand that if you believe that god is all powerful, why he would need people to enforce his will.

God works thru people.

A flood is coming to town, and the fire department goes door to door to evacuate people. One man says "No thank you, God will save me".The water starts to rise and the man has to move to the roof. A rescue boat comes by to get him and he says "No thank you, God will save me". The water continues to rise and the man starts treading. A helicopter comes to rescue him and he says "No thank you, God will save me". The man finally drowns and when he gets to heaven he asks God "Why didn't you save me?" God replies, "I sent the fire dept, a rescue boat, and a helicopter and you refused them all"

Quote from: BigRog

Here would be my questionAt what point will you let me die?

As soon as some judge says you can. At the rate we are going, it might come soon than you want. With this standard, we only need one judge to rule in favor of the HMOs to stop treatment for any person diagnosed with a terminally ill disease. So much for science and the ability to overcome.

Logged

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison

Americans polled believe "seperation of church and state" is in the constitution.

You mean the actual phrase? No. But the concept is there, the bit about making no laws respecting religion.

I haven't participated anywhere on the topic of Terri Shiavo. It really should have remained a private matter. And, in fact, none of us knows the motivation behind the actions of any of the participants, and to villify any of them is unjust. I trust the educated assessment of multiple doctors that the woman was indeed in a persistant vegetative state, I trust the CAT scans that show 40% of her brain was non-functioning. So the only opinion I can reasonably have is whether I would want to be kept alive in that state.

No. I would not want to be an emotional and financial drain on my family and friends. I would want them to be able to say good-bye, mourn, and go on.

I'm very tired of forty judges. You just don't get it. One and only one judge ever looked at the facts. The other 39 never looked at any of the facts and just keep reaffirming that the right to die is constitution. That is not what is being questioned. It is the arrogance of the judicial branch to refuse review.

I've worked as a clerk for both trial and appellate judges. I can assure you, when a case comes up for appeal after full trial, the court (or as is usually the case, the judges' clerks) definitely looks at the evidence, reading all the transcripts and looking at all documents. ("Facts" are just findings based on the evidence presented.) Generally, an appellate court won't overturn a trial judge's determinations as to the credibility of a witness (unless the testimony is so internally contradictory as to belie belief), because the trial judge had the opportunity to see the witness's demeanor while testifying. The apellate court will review the trial judge's decisions to admit certain evidence or not, so even evidence that doesn't contribute to the "facts" can be reviewed. Ultimately, the appellate court will overturn the trial decision if the judge abused his discretion in any of these areas, or if the decision isn't supported by the evidence.

Because the original question was whether Terri had ever stated a wish to not be kept alive on life support (specifically, a feeding tube), it's unfair to suggest that only one judge ever reviewed the evidence that compelled the original trial judge to answer the question "yes." The right-to-die was declared constitutional a long time ago, and as far as I'm aware, that question was never raised in the Schiavo case. But the constitutionality of the US Congress's intervention and legislation was raised in a concurring opinion of the last federal Circuit Court ruling.

As a society we give judges the task of resolving disputes that we cannot resolve ourselves, because we believe in a peaceful means of settling differences. Threatening repisals against judges who make decision we don't like threatens the stability of our society. Its just another step toward "rule of thuggery."

In this sad story, neither the family nor the husband is totally unscathed as negative stories about behavior and motives have been told about both sides. I, personally, don't know what to believe about any of them.

All I know is that if it were me, I would not want to be kept alive with no hope of any quality of life. If I were terminal, I would want the right to choose the time of my death so that I can live as long as possible but die with dignity thus sparing myself unnecessary pain and my family unnecessary grief and expense. Unfortunately, if you are in a coma, the law doesn't allow you to be just eased out of life - you have to die on your own. Allowing a person to die - to let nature take its natural course - is not murder in my mind.

I haven't posted on this topic because it REALLY bothers me. I've had personal experience watching people die from starvation in nursing homes. I think it's very cruel.Terri was not in an unresponsive coma. All she needed as "life support" was a feeding tube. There are many people in this world that need that - including small babies. Some need it their whole life. We all need food for "life support", the route it gets into our body should not matter. Terri was not a burden to her parents. They loved her and wanted anything possible done to work towards rehabilitation. Yes, she would have eventually died..... don't we all? You could consider my life terminal. If I was denied food and water, I'd die too. I have no hope of recovery from my personal illnesses either. Why am I only valued as a human because I can talk, type, and give something to my family?

But as far as Terri being a vegetable in an unresponsive coma? That is completely untrue! She may not have been able to speak, but she was very aware of her surroundings - evident in eye movement, facial expression, and her attempts to reach out and touch people. Babies can only do as much. Does that make them NON people, worthy of death?

It's possible there may have been no hope of recovery. It's very possible she couldn't be rehabilitated. But so what!? If I lost a limb due to my diabetes, and had a stroke where I could no longer speak or feed myself.... my husband better not ever give up on me! That's what "For better or worse, in sickness and in health" is all about when you marry.

It's true that I also wouldn't want to be on a breathing machine long term. Nor would I really want to be as if I was a corpse but only alive because machines were pumping my blood and getting me air. But Lord forbid anyone want to "unplug" me before trying everything possible. Especially if I'm under 60 or 70 years old. And when I get to that age, I may say - don't do it before I'm 80 or 90 years old. :)

But in my mind.... Terri was VERY responsive, and was murdered by starvation. We had a woman in a nursing home I worked at. She couldn't talk, or move any part of her body other than the head parts (eyes, mouth, neck). She was terminal...... had cancer in very advanced stages. Well she had a living will that said she didn't want to be kept on life support. All she really needed for this life support would have been a feeding tube. But nope.... no one gave her that. She was moved into the nursing home to die. Doctors said it would take no more than a couple days - 3 at the most because of denying her water. That woman lived a little over TWO WEEKS! Daily when I went in to care for her she watched me, and responded very simply (by blinking) to questions I asked. She told me what she wanted with very simple language, maybe a blink, head movement, facial expression, or move of the head. She got her message across for things like - close the curtains/the sun is in my eyes - wipe my forhead/I'm hot - help me move my body/I'm uncomfortable. I know for a fact that woman was SOOOOOO thristy and hungry. I had to wipe her mouth out during the day with these sponges on a stick. She would grab ahold of that thing with her teeth and SUCK all the water out. It was the only water she got - every day - till she died.

That was not dieing with dignity. Yes this woman would have died - and soon. Her cancer was in very late stages and she had no hope of survival or rehabilitation. But speeding it up by denying her food and water was horrible!! That's not dieing with dignity, that murder.

Would anyone here suggest that parents of a terminally ill baby be denied these things? And think - well, they're dying anyway, so no point in feeding them. It's completely cruel and inhumane.